I mean I can't legally drive a car which has had its DPF removed, but i can legally drive a 40 year old car which probably puts out a lot more pollutants.

Also, I think DPF is pointless, as to recharge it, you have to heat up the exhaust to burn off the soot. This means high revs, low gear, which is uneconomical driving, and is therefore bad for the environment, and your MPG.

Particulates probably are really harmful, but then so is smoking, WIFI, microwaves, processed food, UV rays, pretty much everything.

I mean I can't legally drive a car which has had its DPF removed, but i can legally drive a 40 year old car which probably puts out a lot more pollutants.

Also, I think DPF is pointless, as to recharge it, you have to heat up the exhaust to burn off the soot. This means high revs, low gear, which is uneconomical driving, and is therefore bad for the environment, and your MPG.

Click to expand...

If it is OEM fitted it's got to be there.

Joe Public needs to have more of an understanding of how the system works and apply it to their lifestyle. Urban dweller then diesel is probably not the best way to go from a DPF perspective, motorway road king then a diesel will probably suit. Somewhere between the two then factoring in a regular run with 3k in revs over say a 20 minute period is advisable.

DPF's are a pain and we know why they are there. They are also something to factor in on a decision making process when buying a diesel.

According to Honest John the DPF will only last an estimated 80k-120k before they need either replacing or cleaning. Not ideal but that's the way it is.

Before DPF's it was the moan about EGR's and before long it will be SCR's too. Quite simply you pays yer money and you takes your choice.

Finally, if it helps, I have been using Wyns DPF regenerator once a year following comments from a taxi owner (12 x Avensis) on the Toyota forum. Before this he had DPF lights on all the time and now with a dose every 6 months, nothing in three years on all vehicles apparently.

I mean I can't legally drive a car which has had its DPF removed, but i can legally drive a 40 year old car which probably puts out a lot more pollutants.

Also, I think DPF is pointless, as to recharge it, you have to heat up the exhaust to burn off the soot. This means high revs, low gear, which is uneconomical driving, and is therefore bad for the environment, and your MPG.

Particulates probably are really harmful, but then so is smoking, WIFI, microwaves, processed food, UV rays, pretty much everything.

Click to expand...

Nope, not stupid at all.

Many people will think that removing a DPF is the stupid thing to do.

What I would say, is that most people do not understand how a DPF works and how what they may need to do to help it work effectively. (let alone understand if they should buy a diesel or a petrol car)
However, that's not to say its the publics fault, as frankly the education has been appalling, and why is there no indication to the driver when an active regeneration is taking place. (or better still also state when one is coming up)
Yes I know that many people can tell as the car doesn't quite drive the same, however most people will not often notice, but lets at least give people the option to help the process, for example seeing the regeneration is taking place, drop down a gear, perhaps complete that longer drive to the shops or a friend you need to do to coincide with the regeneration (that's when the prewarning would be useful)

Regards older cars not meeting modern standards, unfortunately there is not too much that can be done without a crystal ball or time machine. It would be unreasonable to say to people that own older cars that 'sorry I know the car met standards at the time and you may even have been encouraged to buy that vehicle based on government policy and thinking at the time, but time moves on so you can't use it anymore'... Although there are some rules in already, or coming in, eg the congestion charge and environmental zones in London.. so there is some work making it more difficult to use older vehicles.

And ultimately, surely using cars to their life potential has the benefit of less resources, energy, transportation etc etc is used in manufacturing of the car in the first place. Some of the current electric cars for example will never recoup the extra resources and pollution required to make them over a petrol or diesel car, however they are doing a good job in turning peoples opinions to new tech so that when the tech gets to the point they are of benefit people will be more willing to use it.

oh and lets not forget, petrol engines also product particulates, just smaller so you can't see them...

I mean I can't legally drive a car which has had its DPF removed, but i can legally drive a 40 year old car which probably puts out a lot more pollutants.

Also, I think DPF is pointless, as to recharge it, you have to heat up the exhaust to burn off the soot. This means high revs, low gear, which is uneconomical driving, and is therefore bad for the environment, and your MPG.

Particulates probably are really harmful, but then so is smoking, WIFI, microwaves, processed food, UV rays, pretty much everything.

Click to expand...

So you had your dpf removed and now you're pissed that you have to have it refitted? Oh dear.

Same as all the petrol boys who have their cat removed and then complain when it comes to mot time and they either have to refit it or find a place who can't see it's been removed. All the while polluting the environment more than the car was designed to do...

Re the DPF issues, these had frightened me off buying another diesel despite my real world preference for them. The Leon isn't going to last forever. However, I do now feel confident that a future replacement will be a diesel after four years of running around in a DPF'd Skoda and no grief.

Yes you have to play the game (decent fuel plus additive, proper runs and an annual bottle of DPF regenerator going through the tank), perhaps a little overkill, but given its life (mostly local runs), still no ball ache. Touch wood as anything can happen of course.

I remember all those years ago when EGR's came in and the constant moans from owners with cacked up valves. Despite nearly 14 years of ownership, the EGR has never had to come off the Leon. Luck possibly, but my take on it is 14 years of good quality fuel plus Millers additive from day one. I may be wrong but who knows.

You have to jump through some hoops but playing the hand as best you can is all you can do.

Regards older cars not meeting modern standards, unfortunately there is not too much that can be done without a crystal ball or time machine. It would be unreasonable to say to people that own older cars that 'sorry I know the car met standards at the time and you may even have been encouraged to buy that vehicle based on government policy and thinking at the time, but time moves on so you can't use it anymore'...

Same as my car being a 2009, it was designed to comply with regulations at that time, how can it be expected to meet new standards?

So what's your problem then? Why you complaining you can't drive a car with it removed?

Click to expand...

It's just stupid how i could drive a 40 year old car that put out a lot of pollutants, but i couldn't drive a 10 year old car that would produce a lot less even with a DPF removed. It wouldn't be so bad if the DPF had a lifetime warranty, but it is designed to get clogged up and fail eventually. I'm guessing the factories that produce the DPF's produce a lot less pollutants than a car without a DPF?

It's just stupid how i could drive a 40 year old car that put out a lot of pollutants, but i couldn't drive a 10 year old car that would produce a lot less even with a DPF removed. It wouldn't be so bad if the DPF had a lifetime warranty, but it is designed to get clogged up and fail eventually. I'm guessing the factories that produce the DPF's produce a lot less pollutants than a car without a DPF?

Click to expand...

Yes, but you don't though, do you? As indicated above, cars are a disposable asset and over time people will move on to newer, more efficient, cleaner cars and the older, more polluting ones will disappear (either to the scrap heap or to a garage somewhere). Therefore, on average, everything moves towards a better outcome.

You have chosen to move with the times and got a car with a DPF, which catches most of the particulates that diesels generate. This is a good thing, because these particulates get deep into the lungs and are carcinogenic. Removing a DPF is like saying **** you to the population at large because you want some kind of personal gain at everyone's expense. Yes, they are a flawed solution but if treated and used right can be largely hassle-free and last a decent time (I recent sold a 6 year old Yeti with the 2.0 CR 140 TDi at around 75,000 miles that I had had from new - I never had a single moment's issue with the DPF).

The problem comes when people buy (or are sold) DPF-equipped diesels for inappropriate duty cycles - short, infrequent journeys with no high speed runs for example.

Someone above mentioned that PM is not just a diesel problem; this is true. Direct-injection petrol engines also produce particulates, and they are smaller (and thus more lung-penetrating) than diesel particulates. We are facing the likelihood of gasoline particulate filters (GPFs) in the next round of emission controls.

DPF, SCR, TWC, EGR - they're all there to reduce harmful emissions from machines that are inherently polluting. It's the price we pay for wanting to move ourselves around conveniently, but we can at least do our best not to make the situation worse by deliberately defeating these controls.

It's just stupid how i could drive a 40 year old car that put out a lot of pollutants, but i couldn't drive a 10 year old car that would produce a lot less even with a DPF removed. It wouldn't be so bad if the DPF had a lifetime warranty, but it is designed to get clogged up and fail eventually. I'm guessing the factories that produce the DPF's produce a lot less pollutants than a car without a DPF?

Click to expand...

You could also moan about not being able to remove the seatbelts, or the airbags, or other such stuff, citing the fact that 1960s cars didn't have them so "why should I need to have then now?" It's a flawed argument really.

Your car was designed to produce a certain level of pollution based on the regulations at the time it was built. You can't just decide that you'd prefer to adhere to the regulations applied to a car 40 years ago.

OP , you don't want to be driving in a 40yr old car....4 sp boxes, power steering?..pah!! wooden blocks for brakes, manual window winders etc.....i will NOT go back with rose tinted specs and hanker for a Morris Marina 1.3

It's just stupid how i could drive a 40 year old car that put out a lot of pollutants, but i couldn't drive a 10 year old car that would produce a lot less even with a DPF removed. It wouldn't be so bad if the DPF had a lifetime warranty, but it is designed to get clogged up and fail eventually. I'm guessing the factories that produce the DPF's produce a lot less pollutants than a car without a DPF?

Click to expand...

for info:
the uk site for DPF manufacture for the world leader of catylists has a huge catylist (made up of hundreds of smaller cats) in the outlet chimney.
Its continuously monitored and stopped production if there are any issues, so its a pretty 'clean' factory.

Exactly, so the new MOT regulations should only apply to cars being built after they come into force, not cars that are nearly 10 years old.

Click to expand...

The new MOT rules are not expecting cars to meet newer regulations, they are simply ensuring that they meet some basic requirements they met when they were new. In other words, if a DPF was fitted, it still should be. If a car had no exhaust control systems when new, it doesn’t need to have them now and is tested to older requirements.

I still don't see why people care about needing a DPF to reduce pollution, we're all going to end up in the same place eventually. If you don't want to breathe in pollution, then you're on the wrong planet. People always moaning saying its bad for your health, so is a lot of other stuff but they still do that. They will still have BBQ's which burning coal produces particulates, go on airplanes where the exhaust gasses are more likely to kill you than the plane crashing, still eat processed meat and dairy, still smoke, still drink alcohol. And people says diesels are reducing life expectancy, pretty sure it is higher now than it has ever been.

Would you be happy with lead in your drinking water? That was very popular a hundred years or so ago until we realised the health implications of it. And Asbestos too. That had a fairly long spell of being very popular until people started dying from horrible diseases associated with it.

You can't use the argument that everyone has to die of something so why can't we just kill people with particulates and save all the hassle of having to buy a dpf?

You're sounding more and more like an idiot to me, and I'm curious as to what your actual issue is here, because I'm fairly convinced it has little to do with exhaust emissions and mot tests...

People always moaning saying its bad for your health, so is a lot of other stuff but they still do that. They will still have BBQ's which burning coal produces particulates, go on airplanes where the exhaust gasses are more likely to kill you than the plane crashing, still eat processed meat and dairy, still smoke, still drink alcohol. And people says diesels are reducing life expectancy, pretty sure it is higher now than it has ever been.

Click to expand...

Some of those are a choice. And the choices come with consequences. For many, the benefits outweigh the minuscule risks. Diesels are a real threat to urban pollution, as evidenced by continual failures to meet roadside air cleanliness targets. DPFs are one way to try and minimise their impact. Smoking is the same as removing a DPF... deliberately and knowingly polluting the air around you for others to breathe for a selfish personal benefit.